• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
steve_bank said:
It is pure ignorance. I will leave to Angra to do his won homework and find out where the O2 he breathes comes from, along with rhe ocean's part in the carbon cycle.
You appear to be changing the subject. You earlier said:

steve_bank said:
The loss the ocean nurseries erpresented by the loss of coral reefs affects all life in the ocean. The ocean dies and we die.

I replied, and now you seem to have changed to oxygen depletion. Fair enough, that that would be a much more serious threat - though it is not what you had brought up before.

So, on that note, do you have a specific model you'd like me to address?

I did find a pretty catastrophic one. However:

1. The global oxygen depletion model in question seems to require a level of global warming very improbable for a very long time, which allows for much more advanced responses (see below).

2. I would have to take a closer look (no time at the moment), but from what I can tell, the model is not meant to be realistic and is not considering how species that produce oxygen can adapt to warmer temperatures.

3. The model certainly does not consider potential interventions by means of genetically modified organisms that produce oxygen, which become an option given the amount of time required for collapse.

Anyway, perhaps you had a different model in mind, so do you have a link to one you'd like me to address?
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The oceans can die. The waters off the mouth of the Mississippi are dead from agricultural runoff. Coral is dying.

Sit quietly, take a deep breath, an exhale. Image it going into trees, plants, and plankton.

Inhale imaging it coming from trees, plants, ad plankton.

As to Canada becoming more fertile, you have to understand the carbon cycle. Carbon is locked in frozen tundra. As it melts it goes back to the atmosphere potentially creating a greenhouse runaway.

Evolution and slow geophysical processes have created a complex interconnected ecosystem.

Don't know f homeostatis is the best word. Akll things in nature exist in a dynamic feedback loop that maintains a status quo.n
Food goes up, prey grow predators grow. Food declines, prey declines, predator declines. A natural cycle mantains a balance.

We are not isolated from the oceans or the greater ecosystem. Oceans provide a major source of food. It is finite. China has fired at P boats over control of fishing grounds. The PI ran a ship on a reef declaring it PI territory.

Norway raised a flag on a rock in the Atlantic and maintains a human prescience to establish ownership of the waters.


It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.
What rock have you been living under?

Humans have been, still are, and likely will continue to war over resources since before they were fully modern Homo Sapiens.

Predicting a future war over resources is almost as impressive as predicting that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

It not only WILL be today AND tomorrow; It was yesterday, and yesterday, and all our yesterdays.

Nonetheless, we still managed to not just survive, but thrive.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
steve_bank said:
The oceans can die. The waters off the mouth of the Mississippi are dead from agricultural runoff. Coral is dying.
You need more precision. Some coral may be dying, but dead coral isn't going to result in global oxygen depletion. You'd need more than that.
You said before that numbers talk. I agree, so I will ask you to give me a link to a paper where the matter is addressed, and I'm willing to address it if you like.

steve_bank said:
Sit quietly, take a deep breath, an exhale. Image it going into trees, plants, and plankton.

Inhale imaging it coming from trees, plants, ad plankton.

As to Canada becoming more fertile, you have to understand the carbon cycle. Carbon is locked in frozen tundra. As it melts it goes back to the atmosphere potentially creating a greenhouse runaway.
"Potentially" and "greenhouse runaway" need more precision; we're not going to be Venus. There are models that estimate how much warming we will get, with worst case scenarios, best case scenarios, more probable scenarios, and so on. I know it's bad, but some countries likely will get better climate - better for humans, that is - less cold, more warm.

steve_bank said:
Evolution and slow geophysical processes have created a complex interconnected ecosystem.

Don't know f homeostatis is the best word. Akll things in nature exist in a dynamic feedback loop that maintains a status quo.n
Food goes up, prey grow predators grow. Food declines, prey declines, predator declines. A natural cycle mantains a balance.
True, but humans are capable of surviving on a wide variety of foods, in vastly different climates, etc. We're very difficult to kill off.


steve_bank said:
We are not isolated from the oceans or the greater ecosystem. Oceans provide a major source of food. It is finite. China has fired at P boats over control of fishing grounds. The PI ran a ship on a reef declaring it PI territory.

Norway raised a flag on a rock in the Atlantic and maintains a human prescience to establish ownership of the waters.
Sure, but none of that is an extinction risk.

steve_bank said:
It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.
There are wars over resources. There's always been wars over resources. There will be wars over resources. This does not require global warming, though the latter can make it worse.
Even so, how would you expect that to lead to extinction? Who would be firing enough nukes to do that? The leaders of countries with the capability to do that generally are not insane enough to do it. They are not suicidal. They do not want to see their countries obliterated, they and their families killed. While not impossible, this scenario is pretty improbable.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
steve_bank said:
The oceans can die. The waters off the mouth of the Mississippi are dead from agricultural runoff. Coral is dying.
You need more precision. Some coral may be dying, but dead coral isn't going to result in global oxygen depletion. You'd need more than that.
You said before that numbers talk. I agree, so I will ask you to give me a link to a paper where the matter is addressed, and I'm willing to address it if you like.

steve_bank said:
Sit quietly, take a deep breath, an exhale. Image it going into trees, plants, and plankton.

Inhale imaging it coming from trees, plants, ad plankton.

As to Canada becoming more fertile, you have to understand the carbon cycle. Carbon is locked in frozen tundra. As it melts it goes back to the atmosphere potentially creating a greenhouse runaway.
"Potentially" and "greenhouse runaway" need more precision; we're not going to be Venus. There are models that estimate how much warming we will get, with worst case scenarios, best case scenarios, more probable scenarios, and so on. I know it's bad, but some countries likely will get better climate - better for humans, that is - less cold, more warm.

steve_bank said:
Evolution and slow geophysical processes have created a complex interconnected ecosystem.

Don't know f homeostatis is the best word. Akll things in nature exist in a dynamic feedback loop that maintains a status quo.n
Food goes up, prey grow predators grow. Food declines, prey declines, predator declines. A natural cycle mantains a balance.
True, but humans are capable of surviving on a wide variety of foods, in vastly different climates, etc. We're very difficult to kill off.


steve_bank said:
We are not isolated from the oceans or the greater ecosystem. Oceans provide a major source of food. It is finite. China has fired at P boats over control of fishing grounds. The PI ran a ship on a reef declaring it PI territory.

Norway raised a flag on a rock in the Atlantic and maintains a human prescience to establish ownership of the waters.
Sure, but none of that is an extinction risk.

steve_bank said:
It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.
There are wars over resources. There's always been wars over resources. There will be wars over resources. This does not require global warming, though the latter can make it worse.
Even so, how would you expect that to lead to extinction? Who would be firing enough nukes to do that? The leaders of countries with the capability to do that generally are not insane enough to do it. They are not suicidal. They do not want to see their countries obliterated, they and their families killed. While not impossible, this scenario is pretty improbable.
I suspect that we are seeing middle class white American privilege at work here.

When they say "It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources", what I hear is "It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources that directly impacts people I care about".
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I believe it was around 1177 B.C. that the western world proved human societies were dependent on resources and very self-centered. It was then that ransacking boat people destroyed civilization during a multi-century prolonged drought in the fertile crescent with little resistance. It was also the beginning of the iron age.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Yea, the human patterns of today were set at the beginner of civilization.

I read something about Greeks or Romans harvesting a a marine critter to exhaustion for its dye, purple I think.

In the words of Alfred E Newman 'What, me worry?'. The picture is copyrighted and can't be posted.



I have no idea what Angra's point us. Climate chnange is upon us and us having an observable effect of food in areas and weather.


I know how simulations are done mathematically. Climate is chaotic, meaning small changes in the initial conditions of variables cause wide divergence as the simulation runs. Chaotic systems are a demonstrated physical effect. Over time the models will improve as data grows. Different hurricane models predict different storm paths. Exactly where it hits land is not predicable and that is on a very small scale over a period of weeks with models constantly updated with real time data.

Right now it is fairly clear temperature is ricing, weather is changing, and some areas are more affected than others.

Predicting what Canada will be like 100-200-300 years from now with any certainty IMO is not possible. Too many variables. that can not be quatified to sufficient acuracy. The America prediced yeras back that we wil cease to be net food exporter for a number of reasons one of which is climate change. California, the Southwest, and Midwest s already in trouble with water even without drought.

There is also non linear effects. Thresholds can be reached as trigger points.

My experince wit systems makes it easy for ne to see the ecosystem as a complex ystem with mass, energy, and causality IOW thermodynamics.
 
Last edited:

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
steve_bank said:
I have no idea what Angra's point us. Climate chnange is upon us and us having an observable effect of food in areas and weather.
My points are what I said in my posts, but if you have no idea of what they are, I do not think I can clarify the matter. If you tell me you don't understand this or that, sure I can try to clarify, but no idea is too vague.

And yes, climate change is real and having observable effects. No argument there.

steve_bank said:
I know how simulations are done mathematically. Climate is chaotic, meaning small changes in the initial conditions of variables cause wide divergence as the simulation runs. Chaotic systems are a demonstrated physical effect. Over time the models will improve as data grows. Different hurricane models predict different storm paths. Exactly where it hits land is not predicable and that is on a very small scale over a period of weeks with models constantly updated with real time data.
That's true, but we can however make reasonable predictions of temperatures within certain ranges, as well as other effects, by means of models in some cases (climate), or by looking at other patterns (e.g., we know human tech is getting better).

steve_bank said:
Right now it is fairly clear temperature is ricing, weather is changing, and some areas are more affected than others.
True.

steve_bank said:
Predicting what Canada will be like 100-200-300 years from now with any certainty IMO is not possible. Too many variables. that can not be quatified to sufficient acuracy.
A couple of points:

1. I wasn't looking that far into the future. I reckon that very probably before 200 years (and maybe even 100) there will be an AGI (or several, but let's simplify) that can engage in vastly superhuman geoengineering among other things like building new cities, transport people in large numbers, genetic engineering on a massive scale, etc. Unless the AI goes Skynet on humans - in which case, climate change doesn't matter from that point on, since the AI will just exterminate humans very efficiently -, it will deal with climate change as needed - and if there is no time, it will build the necessary tech to go on, and then deal with it.

2. I was making an assessment in a shorter period, and I was not going for accuracy as in number of degrees warmer, but just the general direction we can tell. Climate in Canada (and much of the world) is not good for humans. We adapt thanks to our tech, but otherwise it's overly cold. We can predict it will be warmer, and very likely will still have plenty of water, which seems to be a good improvement. Now, if we cannot count the places that will get better due to the inherent inaccuracy of our models, how come we can predict that things will be overall worse, or that it will be pretty bad in some places? After all, the models used to predict how bad things will get are also the models we can use to predict that some places will get better. In neither case we can have precise numbers, but we can still make reasonable assessments within certain ranges.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,196
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Some of the discussion is anthrocentric: Species extinctions are of no concern unless that species is useful to humans. Others feel that with power comes responsibility: If humans exercise great control over the planet they have the duty to exercise good stewardship. Humans might be extinct in a few million years; should they worry about what sort of planet they leave behind for whatever creatures survive?

On the argument that climate change may be a "wash," that farming land lost in the tropics will be replaced with new farmlands in Canada and Siberia, there are some points being ignored:
  • Extreme weather events are increasing all over the world. Blizzards, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and floods will increase in intensity: Canada's warmer climate will not be an unmixed blessing. Wildfires are also projected to increase.
  • As the Amazon basin turns arid, the Earth's total vegetation will fall regardless of new growth. The Amazon is an important carbon sink: its 123 billion tons of carbon is about ten times the total carbon in the atmosphere.
  • Loss of biodiversity is a serious issue for some thinkers.
  • Ocean levels will rise.
  • Climate change will be disruptive.
Nigeria and Bangladesh — two countries which will NOT be as "lucky" as Canada when temperatures rise — have a combined population of 383 million people. Do the Pollyannas anticipate airlifting these millions to Canada? Expect much human misery and geopolitical disruption as climate change unfolds.

I wasn't too concerned about sea levels until a very recent report about a melting in Antarctica suggests that levels might rise by as much as 3 meters before mid-century! Big ocean level changes have been common (and relatively unimportant) over the aeons but today there are many large cities located near sea-coasts. More disruption. (And there are low-lying lands not near sea-coasts. Is it common knowledge that California's Sacramento has a lower average elevation than San Francisco? Are there any plans to build a dam across the Carquinez Strait? Would such a project even be possible?)

Some in the thread snap their fingers and say humans are clever and will find ways to surmount all difficulties. I have a less sanguine view of mankind's achievements.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Humans are clever, and will find ways to surmount all difficulties.

Indeed, as far as Climate Change is concerned, we largely have found ways to surmount most of oir difficultes.

But humans are dumb, and will find ways to reject all solutions.

Shit, they even oppose the most effective way of generating reliable, clean power, on the grounds that they are worried that it's not safe - despite it having a sixty year track history that shows it to be at least five orders of magnitude less deadly than the dirty technologies it should be replacing.

If you suggest closing a fossil fuel plant and replacing it with nuclear, people say "But Chernobyl!", ignoring the fact that you would need a Chernobyl every single week for nuclear power accidents to kill as many people as coal kills.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Back in the 90s when I was in the Idaho Panhandle California floated a plan to dam a valley and run the water down to California.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
steve_bank said:
I have no idea what Angra's point us. Climate chnange is upon us and us having an observable effect of food in areas and weather.
My points are what I said in my posts, but if you have no idea of what they are, I do not think I can clarify the matter. If you tell me you don't understand this or that, sure I can try to clarify, but no idea is too vague.

And yes, climate change is real and having observable effects. No argument there.

steve_bank said:
I know how simulations are done mathematically. Climate is chaotic, meaning small changes in the initial conditions of variables cause wide divergence as the simulation runs. Chaotic systems are a demonstrated physical effect. Over time the models will improve as data grows. Different hurricane models predict different storm paths. Exactly where it hits land is not predicable and that is on a very small scale over a period of weeks with models constantly updated with real time data.
That's true, but we can however make reasonable predictions of temperatures within certain ranges, as well as other effects, by means of models in some cases (climate), or by looking at other patterns (e.g., we know human tech is getting better).

steve_bank said:
Right now it is fairly clear temperature is ricing, weather is changing, and some areas are more affected than others.
True.

steve_bank said:
Predicting what Canada will be like 100-200-300 years from now with any certainty IMO is not possible. Too many variables. that can not be quatified to sufficient acuracy.
A couple of points:

1. I wasn't looking that far into the future. I reckon that very probably before 200 years (and maybe even 100) there will be an AGI (or several, but let's simplify) that can engage in vastly superhuman geoengineering among other things like building new cities, transport people in large numbers, genetic engineering on a massive scale, etc. Unless the AI goes Skynet on humans - in which case, climate change doesn't matter from that point on, since the AI will just exterminate humans very efficiently -, it will deal with climate change as needed - and if there is no time, it will build the necessary tech to go on, and then deal with it.

2. I was making an assessment in a shorter period, and I was not going for accuracy as in number of degrees warmer, but just the general direction we can tell. Climate in Canada (and much of the world) is not good for humans. We adapt thanks to our tech, but otherwise it's overly cold. We can predict it will be warmer, and very likely will still have plenty of water, which seems to be a good improvement. Now, if we cannot count the places that will get better due to the inherent inaccuracy of our models, how come we can predict that things will be overall worse, or that it will be pretty bad in some places? After all, the models used to predict how bad things will get are also the models we can use to predict that some places will get better. In neither case we can have precise numbers, but we can still make reasonable assessments within certain ranges.
Didn't you say there will be winners and losers, Canada warming being a winner, or something like that?

The idea that there will be winners and losers among humans with climate change is as I said up there with those crazy conservatories. As Secretary of State Pompeio said if the Arctic is thawing let's exploit it.

The global economy as it is today s not sustainable even without climate change. Humnas have a hard time planning for the future and for resiliency.

There are no contingencies for disruptions. The pandemic showed how fragile our food supply chain is. Something obvious like a planned and tested national response to a pandemic including drug companies. Even given what is happening now such planning will never happen.

On the west coast peoe continue to build in drought stricken waht as once remote forests, and complain when their house burns down. A power line spark may have caucused a fire and blame is focused, but people stupidly build in fire prone areas without any consideration for the risks.

Climate change is the culmination of human greed and lack of foresight. Evolution gave us the ability to create technology, but not the ability to use it wisely. We are failing the Darwin Test.

Unless someone wants to argue humans do not act against their own best interests interests?

Staring with the American Civil War there was a rapid development of weapons leading to the machine gun, chemical weapons, and long range artillery in WWI.

In WWII there was competition over who would get nuclear weapons first. Intense competition over a superior fighter plane. That human invention and creativity for you. Climate change is the product of that invention and creativity.

I know. I wored for Lockheed in the 80s and worked for Intel among other places producng 'stuff' for consumption. Creatvity supported by a budget can be intoxicating, it is a high.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
We are failing the Darwin Test
Humans are passing the Darwin test with flying colours. They're numerous, and have expanded into almost every land environment on the planet.

I don't think you understand what evolutionary success looks like. It looks exactly like what H. Sapiens has done over the last few thousand years.

Your unfounded paranoia about our imminent extinction is foolish and counterfactual; But not surprising. One of the keystones of humanity's success has been our telling of stories, and "The world is going to end, and all the fools who didn't do as I told them will suffer" has always been one of the most popular of those stories.

Particularly amongst old men.

Their world is going to end soon, because immortality isn't a thing. Everyone else's will be OK. Things have been getting better for the last five hundred years, and that trend has been accelerating continuously.

We have faced existential threats and defeated them with technology repeatedly. We have the technology to defeat this one too - the only question is how bad it will need to get before conservatives recognise the need for change, and allow us to implement the solutions we have.

It could get very bad indeed; But it cannot get 'extinction of the species' bad. Once bad things start happening to wealthy conservative old white people, things will change.

It would be nice if they changed before we got to that point. But they don't recognise threats that only affect other people - they are so oblivious to such threats that they say stuff like "It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources", when the slightest grasp of reality would have left no doubt that it IS today - just not in their back yard. :rolleyes:
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,394
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.
No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,394
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.
No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.
Surely a bit hyperbolic? I can't imagine anyone thinks that there will be no humans at all left in the near future. The concern would be more for situations like, say, the mass starvation of billions.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.
No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.
Surely a bit hyperbolic? I can't imagine anyone thinks that there will be no humans at all left in the near future. The concern would be more for situations like, say, the mass starvation of billions.
Well 'The Darwin Test' certainly implies extinction to me.

Perhaps it's hyperbole, perhaps not; I can only know what people actually post, not what they are thinking when posting.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.
No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.
Surely a bit hyperbolic? I can't imagine anyone thinks that there will be no humans at all left in the near future. The concern would be more for situations like, say, the mass starvation of billions.

It doesn't look hyperbolic to me (see my exchange with steve for details). And you do not want to imagine it, by the way. It's easy to find plenty of humans who believe there will be no humans left in the future. For example:


1. Rapturists and other apocalyptic Christians (or Muslims or Jews perhaps).
2. Climate change activists who believe it's an extinction level threat.
3. Experts in AI and philosophers who believe AI will likely kill humans off.


1. is ridiculously false.

2. is false too; the best argument I've seen is the oxygen depletion thing because at least it offers a mechanism that could do it, but it fails for a number of reasons, and I could debate the details if you like.

3. I do not know how to deal with this one, though. I would say it's improbable, but cannot rule it out; there are failure modes that seem to do just that. But we're not debating that one here.


In any case, you can easily find plenty of people in the above categories.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Swammerdami said:
Some of the discussion is anthrocentric: Species extinctions are of no concern unless that species is useful to humans.
Of no concern to whom? In any event, I have not read any posts in this thread suggesting anything like that.

I have however considered, when replying to a claim of human extinction, that many species can become extinct without causing any significant risk of human extinction. So, they are of no concern for the purposes of the question of whether humans will become extinct due to climate change.

Swammerdami said:
On the argument that climate change may be a "wash," that farming land lost in the tropics will be replaced with new farmlands in Canada and Siberia, there are some points being ignored:
I have not read any posts in this thread suggesting anything like that - i.e. , that it may be a "wash" for that particular reason. Since I brought up Canada and Russia, let me point out that I have considered that some areas will probably become more suitable for human life than they are today (overall; nothing is perfect), and that there appears to be no good reason why they could not sustain a population of billions - that was in reply to a claim about the planet's not being able to sustain billions of humans.

This is not to say that climate change is not disastrous. The disasters will not come in the form of rendering the planet unable to sustain billions of humans - given available tech -, but in the amount of death and suffering along the way.


Swammerdami said:
Nigeria and Bangladesh — two countries which will NOT be as "lucky" as Canada when temperatures rise — have a combined population of 383 million people. Do the Pollyannas anticipate airlifting these millions to Canada? Expect much human misery and geopolitical disruption as climate change unfolds.
I am not sure who the Pollyannas are. As I've been saying, I do expect much human suffering and death as climate change unfolds. It's a disaster that could have been mitigated to a large extent. However, the anti-nuclear lobby seems too strong to be defeated, in the West at least, and in some other democracies.

Swammerdami said:
Some in the thread snap their fingers and say humans are clever and will find ways to surmount all difficulties. I have a less sanguine view of mankind's achievements.
Could you identify at least two of the "some in the thread", so that I know which posts you have in mind?

Personally, as I said in previous posts, I do not claim that humans will find ways to surmount all difficulties. For example,

1. The difficulty presented by anti-nuclear activists is probably insurmountable. Sure, anti-nuclear activists can find a way to surmount it: they can make a choice to stop being anti-nuclear activists (more precisely, each of them - or of a sufficiently large subset - would have to make that choice individually). But chances are in most cases that's not happening.

2. Some of the difficulties resulting from climate change seem to be so as well, as we are too late to stop them - e.g., extreme weather events kill and will kill and injure many people.

Even so, none of the above difficulties, even if insurmountable, are the sort of difficulties that would realistically result in human extinction. I have not made similar claims about the difficulty presented by rogue AGI, though. In fact, if the first AGI went against humans, I would expect human extermination, so the question would be the probability of the first AGI going rogue. I think extinction by rogue AI is improbable, but I do not have enough expertise to make a strong assessment, and I make no claims that humans will survive it. But that's not the matter of the thread, so I wasn't focusing on that one.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.
No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.

Disagree--in terms of direct actions extinction is unlikely. However, humans have quite an ability to locate where there might be distant resources and fight over them. Population crashes in nature aren't extinction events because while a local population may be wiped out others in more favorable locations will still survive.

However, humans have two big problems in this sort of scenario:

1) The humans in the area that can't survive won't just starve, they will attempt to go to the more favorable areas and take resources. We have already seen that humans can strip an area to the point nobody can survive.

2) Humans rely heavily on the slow production of resources--farming. In an area well beyond it's carrying capacity the takers will end up killing the producers--by the time the population is down to it's carrying capacity there will be only very unskilled producers and thus the carrying capacity is far lower. Such resource production also takes longer than the survival time without food--you can't farm without having a store of food to live on while you're doing it. That food gets eaten, everyone starves before the crops come in.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.
No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.

Disagree--in terms of direct actions extinction is unlikely. However, humans have quite an ability to locate where there might be distant resources and fight over them. Population crashes in nature aren't extinction events because while a local population may be wiped out others in more favorable locations will still survive.

However, humans have two big problems in this sort of scenario:

1) The humans in the area that can't survive won't just starve, they will attempt to go to the more favorable areas and take resources. We have already seen that humans can strip an area to the point nobody can survive.

2) Humans rely heavily on the slow production of resources--farming. In an area well beyond it's carrying capacity the takers will end up killing the producers--by the time the population is down to it's carrying capacity there will be only very unskilled producers and thus the carrying capacity is far lower. Such resource production also takes longer than the survival time without food--you can't farm without having a store of food to live on while you're doing it. That food gets eaten, everyone starves before the crops come in.
None of that is sufficient to cause human extinction. You are assuming that the ability to detect food across oceans, and to rapidly transport large numbers of people (or large volumes of food) across those oceans, will persist longer than the ability to subsistence farm. Which is insane.

The world is fucking huge, and humans are fucking everywhere. The timing required to ensure an extinction event such as you describe is incompatible with the collapse of civilisation required to initiate such an event.

And we have a VAST amount of food in long-term storage.

A small town of 100,000 people contains about enough tinned food to last over a week, so say crudely a million person days of food. That's enough to feed a hundred survivors for more than twenty five years.

A larger city can feed ten thousand people for a decade just on scavenging supermarkets and warehouses, even if half of that tinned food is destroyed - and there is no other food source at all.

When you have billions of people storing stuff, and then most of them die, that's a vast per capita resource for a minimum viable population of survivors.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
With the widespread electronic and paper storage of science and engineering even with large scale collapse knowledge will likely survive, unless there is some kind of reaction against science and technology. Analogous to Mao's Cultural Revolution that turned on academics and intellectuals. Given a breakdown in order in the USA who knows where the conservative religious right will take it.

The capitol riot as an example. Civil order and rule of law is fragile. It broke down in Seattle during the riots.

At this point basic energy production is not 'rocket science'.

Here in the PNW we have an ongoing problem with foreign insects that manage to get here, probably through shipping. No ntural predators. It is not just a virus pandemic, there s also the risk of crop failures from a number of causes, one being mono culture. The breeding of crops for high yield and consumer desirability discarding old genes. I think it is Norway where there is a repository for heritage seeds in case a mono crop falls dueu to insects or diseases.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
There are also plenty of isolated groups of humans who would be unlikely to be eliminated by any human caused global die-back.

The removal of the bulk of humanity would likely be a boon to remote Amazonian tribes, and to people such as the Sentinelese, the New Guinea highlanders, etc., for whom the largest current threat is the rest of us.

Despite our ingenuity, we probably couldn't kill off everyone. Even a deliberate attempt to go extinct, such as a global nuclear war, would almost certainly fail to eliminate all of these remote groups, and given a few tens of thousands of years, there's no particular reason not to expect world population to get back into the billions.

Disaster we can manage. The end of civilisation is perhaps achievable. Extinction is a much more difficult objective. The universe could impose it on us without the slightest difficulty, but we aren't powerful enough to do it to ourselves.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,510
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
When you have billions of people storing stuff, and then most of them die, that's a vast per capita resource for a minimum viable population of survivors
… as long as you like your vittles well done.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
5,597
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
And we will all bake together when we bake
There'll be nobody present at the wake
With complete participation in that grand incineration
Nearly three billion hunks of well-done steak.

- Tom Lehrer
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
None of that is sufficient to cause human extinction. You are assuming that the ability to detect food across oceans, and to rapidly transport large numbers of people (or large volumes of food) across those oceans, will persist longer than the ability to subsistence farm. Which is insane.

No detection needed, people will proceed to where they think food is.
The world is fucking huge, and humans are fucking everywhere. The timing required to ensure an extinction event such as you describe is incompatible with the collapse of civilisation required to initiate such an event.

And we have a VAST amount of food in long-term storage.

A small town of 100,000 people contains about enough tinned food to last over a week, so say crudely a million person days of food. That's enough to feed a hundred survivors for more than twenty five years.

If you had a disease event that killed 99.9% of the population you would be at least close to right. However, most apocalyptic scenarios will not kill most people. You might have 50,000 fighting over that food, two weeks of survival. There's also the issue of fire--with no meaningful firefighting capability do not expect that food to be there in 25 years.

And what good is that food, anyway? Your 100 survivors will not be able to maintain the grid, thus they won't have water unless there's a local source--and most places don't have such sources.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
With the widespread electronic and paper storage of science and engineering even with large scale collapse knowledge will likely survive, unless there is some kind of reaction against science and technology. Analogous to Mao's Cultural Revolution that turned on academics and intellectuals. Given a breakdown in order in the USA who knows where the conservative religious right will take it.

Electronic storage? A while back I was going through some old hard drives to get rid of. Spin them up, wipe them and put them in a box to give away. Half wouldn't spin up. None of them were more than 20 years old, most of them substantially less.

My wife has a bunch of Chinese dramas on VCD and DVD. Many wouldn't mount after only some years of storage.

And there's less and less of the paper storage.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
None of that is sufficient to cause human extinction. You are assuming that the ability to detect food across oceans, and to rapidly transport large numbers of people (or large volumes of food) across those oceans, will persist longer than the ability to subsistence farm. Which is insane.

No detection needed, people will proceed to where they think food is.
Seriously?

Civilisation has collapsed; The USA is devastated. Hundreds of millions have died just in the US alone.

You hear a rumour that food is still available in Tibet.

How are you getting there?
The world is fucking huge, and humans are fucking everywhere. The timing required to ensure an extinction event such as you describe is incompatible with the collapse of civilisation required to initiate such an event.

And we have a VAST amount of food in long-term storage.

A small town of 100,000 people contains about enough tinned food to last over a week, so say crudely a million person days of food. That's enough to feed a hundred survivors for more than twenty five years.

If you had a disease event that killed 99.9% of the population you would be at least close to right. However, most apocalyptic scenarios will not kill most people.
A scenario that doesn't kill most people isn't much of an extinction event, is it?
You might have 50,000 fighting over that food, two weeks of survival. There's also the issue of fire--with no meaningful firefighting capability do not expect that food to be there in 25 years.

And what good is that food, anyway? Your 100 survivors will not be able to maintain the grid, thus they won't have water unless there's a local source--and most places don't have such sources.
With a handful of exceptions, all human settlements have a local source of fresh water.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
We are not likey to go extinct, but the vast majority of Americans seem to have a faith it will always be buiness as usual. That faith comes from the short post war period of economic growth and ricing standards of living. Generl wodespead physical comfort that crtes a sense of security.

Here in Seattle the east west mountain passes have been closed for several days due to snow and is affecting supplies. Snoqualamie Pass is the main interstate going east. The north south I5 was temporarily closed for 20 mile stretch due to flooding. There is widespread regional flooding. Snow closures are usually short term, this is unusual.

It is just a taste of what may be coming.

You can find time line estimates online of how long the Earth will be habitable. The Sun cycle. Astronomy gives us an upper bound assuming we do not destroy ourselves first.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
With the widespread electronic and paper storage of science and engineering even with large scale collapse knowledge will likely survive, unless there is some kind of reaction against science and technology. Analogous to Mao's Cultural Revolution that turned on academics and intellectuals. Given a breakdown in order in the USA who knows where the conservative religious right will take it.

Electronic storage? A while back I was going through some old hard drives to get rid of. Spin them up, wipe them and put them in a box to give away. Half wouldn't spin up. None of them were more than 20 years old, most of them substantially less.

My wife has a bunch of Chinese dramas on VCD and DVD. Many wouldn't mount after only some years of storage.

And there's less and less of the paper storage.
Servers are maintained and redundant. Electronic media will survive, if for nothing else but economic interest. Engineering and scientific and mediacl knowledge will survive.

Plato and Aristotle were carried forward. As was math and science.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
None of that is sufficient to cause human extinction. You are assuming that the ability to detect food across oceans, and to rapidly transport large numbers of people (or large volumes of food) across those oceans, will persist longer than the ability to subsistence farm. Which is insane.

No detection needed, people will proceed to where they think food is.
Seriously?

Civilisation has collapsed; The USA is devastated. Hundreds of millions have died just in the US alone.

You hear a rumour that food is still available in Tibet.

How are you getting there?

They're not going to Tibet. They're heading for locations where food would be expected to be--any center of habitation. Thus all food in centers of habitation will be quickly consumed, then the mob spreads out from them, devouring anything remotely edible it finds. For a store of food to survive it must be remote enough the mob dies before it reaches it and it must be secret so nobody specifically heads for it.

If you had a disease event that killed 99.9% of the population you would be at least close to right. However, most apocalyptic scenarios will not kill most people.
A scenario that doesn't kill most people isn't much of an extinction event, is it?

Take the standard extinction scenario: nuclear war. If you're not near a big city nor an important military facility you're not likely to die in the war. Depending on how dirty it was you might die of the fallout but people in colder climates will be able to shelter against that. Thus you'll have a lot of people out there looking for the food that isn't around anymore.

Or how about something like the dinosaur killer? If you're on the other side of the Earth you'll probably survive the impact. (Anywhere could be hit by a large bit of splash, but that's not going to kill all that many overall.) Again, lots of survivors.

You might have 50,000 fighting over that food, two weeks of survival. There's also the issue of fire--with no meaningful firefighting capability do not expect that food to be there in 25 years.

And what good is that food, anyway? Your 100 survivors will not be able to maintain the grid, thus they won't have water unless there's a local source--and most places don't have such sources.
With a handful of exceptions, all human settlements have a local source of fresh water.

Huh? An awful lot of human settlements rely on wells for water. No power = no water. And the existence of water doesn't mean you can get to it--it would be like a waterhole in Africa--staked out by the predators. Don't use your country as representative of population distribution!
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Servers are maintained and redundant. Electronic media will survive, if for nothing else but economic interest. Engineering and scientific and mediacl knowledge will survive.

Plato and Aristotle were carried forward. As was math and science.

The point is what happens when that maintenance stops. There is a huge amount of industry required to maintain those servers, it won't be possible in a collapse situation.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
None of that is sufficient to cause human extinction. You are assuming that the ability to detect food across oceans, and to rapidly transport large numbers of people (or large volumes of food) across those oceans, will persist longer than the ability to subsistence farm. Which is insane.

No detection needed, people will proceed to where they think food is.
Seriously?

Civilisation has collapsed; The USA is devastated. Hundreds of millions have died just in the US alone.

You hear a rumour that food is still available in Tibet.

How are you getting there?

They're not going to Tibet. They're heading for locations where food would be expected to be--any center of habitation. Thus all food in centers of habitation will be quickly consumed, then the mob spreads out from them, devouring anything remotely edible it finds. For a store of food to survive it must be remote enough the mob dies before it reaches it and it must be secret so nobody specifically heads for it.
Or it just needs to be somewhere remote and inaccessible.

Like Tibet. They have food there, you know.

Or any of hundreds of island nations.

If you want your marauding mob to eat everyone's food, you're going to need to give them some serious transportation capabilities.
If you had a disease event that killed 99.9% of the population you would be at least close to right. However, most apocalyptic scenarios will not kill most people.
A scenario that doesn't kill most people isn't much of an extinction event, is it?

Take the standard extinction scenario: nuclear war. If you're not near a big city nor an important military facility you're not likely to die in the war. Depending on how dirty it was you might die of the fallout but people in colder climates will be able to shelter against that. Thus you'll have a lot of people out there looking for the food that isn't around anymore.

Or how about something like the dinosaur killer? If you're on the other side of the Earth you'll probably survive the impact. (Anywhere could be hit by a large bit of splash, but that's not going to kill all that many overall.) Again, lots of survivors.

You might have 50,000 fighting over that food, two weeks of survival. There's also the issue of fire--with no meaningful firefighting capability do not expect that food to be there in 25 years.

And what good is that food, anyway? Your 100 survivors will not be able to maintain the grid, thus they won't have water unless there's a local source--and most places don't have such sources.
With a handful of exceptions, all human settlements have a local source of fresh water.

Huh? An awful lot of human settlements rely on wells for water. No power = no water. And the existence of water doesn't mean you can get to it--it would be like a waterhole in Africa--staked out by the predators. Don't use your country as representative of population distribution!
Mate, my country is one of the few where water probably would be a problem.

Power isn't needed for a well to supply water; People used wells for water in the Neolithic, and they didn't have pumps.

You can get water from a well with a rope and a bucket.

And the VAST majority of people live near rivers. Permanent rivers, with plenty of fresh water.

Filter, boil, cool, and drink. Not difficult.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Servers are maintained and redundant. Electronic media will survive, if for nothing else but economic interest. Engineering and scientific and mediacl knowledge will survive.

Plato and Aristotle were carried forward. As was math and science.

The point is what happens when that maintenance stops. There is a huge amount of industry required to maintain those servers, it won't be possible in a collapse situation.
There is are still printing presses. Science, math, and engineering books existed before electronics and electricity. Romans had written empircal construction materials test data.

Worse case the Vatican will have an army of monks copying books by candle light until we come out of the Dark Ages.

Greed and the survival instinct will keep knowledge and technology going.

There are underground commercial bunkers where you can store data. Manufacturing processes and documentation sufficient to rebuild manufacturing from scratch are stored in multiple sites by large companies.

Small companies use the net or local hard storage backed up periodicaly. In some small companies I wored at somebody carried a tape of the daily backup home just in case there was a fire.

Project Gutenberg. All books who's copyright has expired are being digitized. You wll find Plato along with a book written by Einstien,

 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Or it just needs to be somewhere remote and inaccessible.

Like Tibet. They have food there, you know.

But how much do they produce there?

Or any of hundreds of island nations.

If you want your marauding mob to eat everyone's food, you're going to need to give them some serious transportation capabilities.

And bad guys can't take ships??

Mate, my country is one of the few where water probably would be a problem.

Power isn't needed for a well to supply water; People used wells for water in the Neolithic, and they didn't have pumps.

You can get water from a well with a rope and a bucket.

And the VAST majority of people live near rivers. Permanent rivers, with plenty of fresh water.

Filter, boil, cool, and drink. Not difficult.

Let's pretend this house had a well. I'll use the average well depth around here. There's a big pump down there and 900' of pipe and the power wires from the pump above it. Think I have anything around that can pull the pump?? Nor do I have 900' of rope lying around. And I don't think even a 1 gallon bucket will go down the bore even with the plumbing out of the way.

As for filter, boil, cool, and drink--boil it with what? Grid down--there's no electricity, there's no gas.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Or it just needs to be somewhere remote and inaccessible.

Like Tibet. They have food there, you know.

But how much do they produce there?
As a minimum bound, enough to feed the entire pre-industrial population of the region. Most likely significantly more than that.
Or any of hundreds of island nations.

If you want your marauding mob to eat everyone's food, you're going to need to give them some serious transportation capabilities.

And bad guys can't take ships??
The proportion of the population who can manage a modern ocean-going ship is minuscule, so as a first pass 'most plausibly' response, I am going to go with "no".
Mate, my country is one of the few where water probably would be a problem.

Power isn't needed for a well to supply water; People used wells for water in the Neolithic, and they didn't have pumps.

You can get water from a well with a rope and a bucket.

And the VAST majority of people live near rivers. Permanent rivers, with plenty of fresh water.

Filter, boil, cool, and drink. Not difficult.

Let's pretend this house had a well. I'll use the average well depth around here. There's a big pump down there and 900' of pipe and the power wires from the pump above it. Think I have anything around that can pull the pump?? Nor do I have 900' of rope lying around. And I don't think even a 1 gallon bucket will go down the bore even with the plumbing out of the way.

As for filter, boil, cool, and drink--boil it with what? Grid down--there's no electricity, there's no gas.
You can make a 'bucket' to fit any bore, out of a piece of pipe of smaller diameter, with a flap valve cap on the bottom and a rope secured to the top. Drop it down, wait for it to sink, then haul it up. Even a small bore pipe holds lots of water if it's long enough.

Most people live within a short distance of a permanent above ground stream or river, but even if a bore is your only option, it doesn't require much technology to rig up a manual lifring system.

I understand that a gallon is around four and a half litres, but have no clue how far a ' is; This is the Internet, not America.

Regardless, a rope, cable, wire or similar of arbitrary length is easy to scavenge. Ordinary household electrical cable is plenty strong enough for the job, and ubiquitous.

And making fire to boil water is a technology the pre-dates the wheel. It certainly pre-dates the widespread supply of electricity and gas.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
In the region we eilways have seasonal flooding and landslides. It is way above normal
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You can make a 'bucket' to fit any bore, out of a piece of pipe of smaller diameter, with a flap valve cap on the bottom and a rope secured to the top. Drop it down, wait for it to sink, then haul it up. Even a small bore pipe holds lots of water if it's long enough.

Of course you can, given access to parts. You're assuming access that likely doesn't exist.

Most people live within a short distance of a permanent above ground stream or river, but even if a bore is your only option, it doesn't require much technology to rig up a manual lifring system.

I understand that a gallon is around four and a half litres, but have no clue how far a ' is; This is the Internet, not America.

Regardless, a rope, cable, wire or similar of arbitrary length is easy to scavenge. Ordinary household electrical cable is plenty strong enough for the job, and ubiquitous.

A ' is a foot. Thus, about 300m. I don't have anything around long enough.

And making fire to boil water is a technology the pre-dates the wheel. It certainly pre-dates the widespread supply of electricity and gas.

Making a fire with what? What's the fuel?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,749
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
You can make a 'bucket' to fit any bore, out of a piece of pipe of smaller diameter, with a flap valve cap on the bottom and a rope secured to the top. Drop it down, wait for it to sink, then haul it up. Even a small bore pipe holds lots of water if it's long enough.

Of course you can, given access to parts. You're assuming access that likely doesn't exist.
You do know that hardware stores and their stock don't cease to exist if their staff die, right?
Most people live within a short distance of a permanent above ground stream or river, but even if a bore is your only option, it doesn't require much technology to rig up a manual lifring system.

I understand that a gallon is around four and a half litres, but have no clue how far a ' is; This is the Internet, not America.

Regardless, a rope, cable, wire or similar of arbitrary length is easy to scavenge. Ordinary household electrical cable is plenty strong enough for the job, and ubiquitous.

A ' is a foot. Thus, about 300m. I don't have anything around long enough.
But the local hardware store does; And the staff are dead, so there's a 100% off final closing down sale in progress.
And making fire to boil water is a technology the pre-dates the wheel. It certainly pre-dates the widespread supply of electricity and gas.

Making a fire with what? What's the fuel?
Gee, I don't know. It's not like fuel grows on trees.

Oh, wait...
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
5,999
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It really is a religion;

MPs today blasted an 'outrageous' decision by a jury to unanimously clear three Extinction Rebellion activists of obstructing the railway on a Docklands Light Railway train - after the group claimed their actions were justified by their Christian faith and fears for their grandchildren. In their defence, Parfitt said she had felt 'deeply called by God to do all that I can to avert the catastrophe that is on its way to his whole creation', while Newell said he had been asking God while on top of the train to 'forgive us for what we've done'.

Daily Mail

A -rapture like cult.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
It really is a religion;

MPs today blasted an 'outrageous' decision by a jury to unanimously clear three Extinction Rebellion activists of obstructing the railway on a Docklands Light Railway train - after the group claimed their actions were justified by their Christian faith and fears for their grandchildren. In their defence, Parfitt said she had felt 'deeply called by God to do all that I can to avert the catastrophe that is on its way to his whole creation', while Newell said he had been asking God while on top of the train to 'forgive us for what we've done'.

Daily Mail

A -rapture like cult.
To be fair, those are a minority of climate change activists. Most do not based their beliefs on any Christian or similar religion, so it's not a representative example.
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
5,999
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It really is a religion;

MPs today blasted an 'outrageous' decision by a jury to unanimously clear three Extinction Rebellion activists of obstructing the railway on a Docklands Light Railway train - after the group claimed their actions were justified by their Christian faith and fears for their grandchildren. In their defence, Parfitt said she had felt 'deeply called by God to do all that I can to avert the catastrophe that is on its way to his whole creation', while Newell said he had been asking God while on top of the train to 'forgive us for what we've done'.

Daily Mail

A -rapture like cult.
To be fair, those are a minority of climate change activists. Most do not based their beliefs on any Christian or similar religion, so it's not a representative example.

The whole climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is a religion, a rapture like cult.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,891
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
It really is a religion;

MPs today blasted an 'outrageous' decision by a jury to unanimously clear three Extinction Rebellion activists of obstructing the railway on a Docklands Light Railway train - after the group claimed their actions were justified by their Christian faith and fears for their grandchildren. In their defence, Parfitt said she had felt 'deeply called by God to do all that I can to avert the catastrophe that is on its way to his whole creation', while Newell said he had been asking God while on top of the train to 'forgive us for what we've done'.

Daily Mail

A -rapture like cult.
To be fair, those are a minority of climate change activists. Most do not based their beliefs on any Christian or similar religion, so it's not a representative example.

The whole climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is a religion, a rapture like cult.
No, that is not true. It is a crisis, as it is likely to have disastrous consequences for tens millions of people: take a look at the link provided by B20, for example.
The apocalypse part is religious-like, yeah, at least for the most part, as at least most of those believing that do not believe it on the basis of reasonable arguments or evidence.
As for whether it's an emergency, well I would say so, though it depends on how fast it has to be for it to be an emergency - the term is flexible I think. It's not like not acting today gets you killed by tomorrow or something. But delays in action very probably do have very bad effects, i.e., people suffering and dying as a result. Not delays by hours or a day probably, but given longer periods - of the kinds we see in reality - sure.

Unfortunately, climate change activists do seem in a large percentage to hold their beliefs related to the matter in a religious-like manner, from the vast exaggeration of the - actually very bad - predictable consequences, to the worst part of them all: anti-nuclear activism. Purely for example, take a look at this thread and the comments therein. It's so sad. Those people are sincere. They are true believers in the evils of nuclear energy. And chances are they'll never be persuaded otherwise. They'll dedicate time and effort to persuade others to their cause and/or insult, accuse, etc., those who dissent (and who are correct). Just like any religion. So sad.
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
5,999
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The whole climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is a religion, a rapture like cult.
No, that is not true.

Of course it 's a cult. These climate doomsayers are the exact same as the rapture fanatics that predict the end of the world. And just as accurate.

It is a crisis, as it is likely to have disastrous consequences for tens millions of people: take a look at the link provided by B20, for example.

The link to a CNN report on a study that "suggests" 500,000+ people will die due to climate change? Behave yourselves.

A rapture like cult.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,098
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The whole climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is a religion, a rapture like cult.
No, that is not true.

Of course it 's a cult. These climate doomsayers are the exact same as the rapture fanatics that predict the end of the world. And just as accurate.

It is a crisis, as it is likely to have disastrous consequences for tens millions of people: take a look at the link provided by B20, for example.

The link to a CNN report on a study that "suggests" 500,000+ people will die due to climate change? Behave yourselves.

A rapture like cult.
Another TSwizzle fizzle.

1. Run into brick wall.
2. Step back.
3. Go to number 1.

'A rapture like cult.' A religious cult like mantra , repeat until one experiences the bliss of wilful ignorance.

1. Chant 'it is like a cult there is no climate change'
2. Go to 1.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You can make a 'bucket' to fit any bore, out of a piece of pipe of smaller diameter, with a flap valve cap on the bottom and a rope secured to the top. Drop it down, wait for it to sink, then haul it up. Even a small bore pipe holds lots of water if it's long enough.

Of course you can, given access to parts. You're assuming access that likely doesn't exist.
You do know that hardware stores and their stock don't cease to exist if their staff die, right?

The demand for materials will far exceed the supply. Same problem as with the food in the groceries.

Most people live within a short distance of a permanent above ground stream or river, but even if a bore is your only option, it doesn't require much technology to rig up a manual lifring system.

I understand that a gallon is around four and a half litres, but have no clue how far a ' is; This is the Internet, not America.

Regardless, a rope, cable, wire or similar of arbitrary length is easy to scavenge. Ordinary household electrical cable is plenty strong enough for the job, and ubiquitous.

A ' is a foot. Thus, about 300m. I don't have anything around long enough.
But the local hardware store does; And the staff are dead, so there's a 100% off final closing down sale in progress.

And why do you assume they're all dead?

And making fire to boil water is a technology the pre-dates the wheel. It certainly pre-dates the widespread supply of electricity and gas.

Making a fire with what? What's the fuel?
Gee, I don't know. It's not like fuel grows on trees.

Oh, wait...

Trees? Not many of those around here and they'll be green wood, miserable fuel.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
34,240
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The link to a CNN report on a study that "suggests" 500,000+ people will die due to climate change? Behave yourselves.

A rapture like cult.

One extra bad hurricane in Bangladesh could rack up 500k dead.
 
Top Bottom